stack_for_mobile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the core transformation (horizontal to vertical stacking), but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation mutates or replaces layout, what happens to spacing or sizing, or whether the change affects only the selected node or its children.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning and the core operation is stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete. It explains the main operation but lacks usage alternatives, side-effect disclosure, and enough behavioral detail to support confident invocation without further inspection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds little beyond schema's 'Frame with horizontal layout' guidance, and it does not clarify the parameter's format or additional constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Convert'), resource ('horizontal layouts'), and outcome ('vertical stacking for mobile'). It is clear and conceptually distinct from the many responsive-layout siblings, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a horizontal layout needs to become a vertical stacked layout for mobile. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., convert_to_responsive, generate_mobile, set_breakpoint) might be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.